The US is famously good at damage control - to the point that the RN sent people to be trained by the USN in damage control post-Falklands war. Look at the difference in outcome between Sheffield and Stark.

Sheffield, a Type 42 destroyer displacing almost 5,000 tonnes, is hit by a single Argentinian-fired Exocet and is lost.

I'm not knocking what the crew of the Stark achieved, but did one of the missiles knock out the main water main, preventing fire fighting, as happened on Sheffield? I don't think so. The Sheffield also sank in heavy seas under tow to South Georgia, days later. The Stark was operating in a relatively calm and confined area of ocean.

I'm not knocking what the crew of the Stark achieved, but did one of the missiles knock out the main water main, preventing fire fighting, as happened on Sheffield? I don't think so. The Sheffield also sank in heavy seas under tow to South Georgia, days later. The Stark was operating in a relatively calm and confined area of ocean.

Agree on the differences in environmental conditions, but its worth looking a bit deeper into some other stats.

Stark had 21% of its nominal complement killed (37 of 176), with a further 12% injured. According to para 2.5 of the JAG report (https://www.jag.navy...STARK BASIC.pdf), the second Exocet (which detonated) severed a fire main junction, disabling the port fire main.

Sheffield had 7% of its complement killed (20 of 287). Damage to the fire main is absolutely unlucky.

Im not saying one crew is better than the other, just that the smaller of the two ships was hit by two of the same type of missile, losing a greater proportion and number of its crew, and survived. That Stark wasnt in a declared war zone - and was presumably less prepared than Sheffield - is also of interest.

Both crews fought and endured horrific conditions. Thankfully both navies learned from the experiences.

I'm not knocking what the crew of the Stark achieved, but did one of the missiles knock out the main water main, preventing fire fighting, as happened on Sheffield? I don't think so. The Sheffield also sank in heavy seas under tow to South Georgia, days later. The Stark was operating in a relatively calm and confined area of ocean.

Also, the warhead on the Stark did not detonate. Modern opinion is, the war head on the Sheffields Exocet in fact did.

The initial Ministry of Defence (MOD) Board of Inquiry on the sinking of Sheffield concluded that, based upon available evidence, the warhead did not detonate.[17] However, some of the crew and members of the task force believed that the missile's 165 kilograms (364 lb) warhead had detonated.[12] This was supported by a MOD re-assessment of the loss of Sheffield, which reported in summer 2015. In a paper delivered to the RINA Warship Conference in Bath in June 2015, it was concluded that the Exocet warhead did indeed detonate inside Sheffield, with the results supported by analysis using modern damage analysis tools not available in 1982 and evidence from weapon hits and trials conducted since the end of the Falklands campaign.[18]

I'm not knocking what the crew of the Stark achieved, but did one of the missiles knock out the main water main, preventing fire fighting, as happened on Sheffield? I don't think so. The Sheffield also sank in heavy seas under tow to South Georgia, days later. The Stark was operating in a relatively calm and confined area of ocean.

Also, the warhead on the Stark did not detonate. Modern opinion is, the war head on the Sheffields Exocet in fact did.https://en.wikipedia...Sheffield_(D80)
The initial Ministry of Defence (MOD) Board of Inquiry on the sinking of Sheffield concluded that, based upon available evidence, the warhead did not detonate.[17] However, some of the crew and members of the task force believed that the missile's 165 kilograms (364 lb) warhead had detonated.[12] This was supported by a MOD re-assessment of the loss of Sheffield, which reported in summer 2015. In a paper delivered to the RINA Warship Conference in Bath in June 2015, it was concluded that the Exocet warhead did indeed detonate inside Sheffield, with the results supported by analysis using modern damage analysis tools not available in 1982 and evidence from weapon hits and trials conducted since the end of the Falklands campaign.[18]

Id REALLY like to read a copy of that if anyone has one handy....

The warhead on Stark*s **first** Exocet didnt detonate, the second Exocets warhead did.

If the Exocet had a better fuzing system, then things may have taken a different course.

There were so many things that could have gone wrong with the Falklands War. Honestly in retrospect it is mildly surprising that the British won. Better bomb fusing would have changed everything, for instance.